APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1.MP-FE-274/CHD/2024 (Misc.) MP-FE-184/CHD/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-FE-185/CHD/2023 (Stay)

FPA-FE-67/CHD/2023 M/s Navyug India Ltd.

2.MP-FE-275/CHD/2024 (Misc.) MP-FE-196/CHD/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-FE-197/CHD/2023 (Stay)

MP-FE-198/CHD/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-FE-72/CHD/2023 Santosh Kumar Parmar … Appellants Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Adv. For the Respondent : Mohd. Wasay Khan, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER

ORDER

30.05.2025 This order would dispose of the application for waiver of the condition of pre deposit to maintain the appeal under section 19 of Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999 (FEMA) (in short, the Act of 1999).

2. The appeal by Navyug India Limited and Santosh Parmar has been listed on 14.05.2025 finding an order of Punjab and Haryana High Court where the appellant preferred a writ petition bearing number 9627/25. The High Court found that the application for waiver of pre-deposit is pending before the Tribunal and the grievance of the appellant is that application has not yet been decided. A direction was accordingly given to decide the application for waiver as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks after obtaining response from the ED. The ED has already submitted response and finding an order of the High Court for expeditious disposal of the application, the appeals were ordered to be listed in reference to the order of the High Court dated 09.04.2025

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that an application has been filed before the High Court for modification of the order. Awaiting the outcome of the said application, the hearing of appeal may be deferred.

4. We are unable to accept the prayer in absence of a modified order of the High Court and finding that the application has to be decided expeditiously and preferably within four weeks and ED has already given response.

5. The learned counsel of the appellants submitted that the waiver from the condition of pre-deposit can be granted considering the financial hardship of the appellants and even touching the merit, if a prima facie case is made out on merit. It can be if the appellants shows their financial hardship to pay the penalty amount.

6. It was submitted that the penalty for contravention of section 3 (d) read with section 42 of FEMA is of Rs. 2 crores on the Director Shri Santosh Kumar Parmar and on M/s Navyug India Ltd., the penalty is of Rs. 10 crores for the contravention of sections 3(d) of the Act of 1999.

7. Referring to the financial condition of the appellant company, it was submitted that the company is earning profit of Rs. 40 lakhs per annum. Thus would not be capable to make the payment of the penalty. So far the individual appellant is concerned, penalty imposed by the respondent is of Rs. 2 crore while his annual income is around Rs. 23 lakhs. The prayer was accordingly made to grant waiver from the condition of pre-

deposit.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that no pleading in reference to the financial condition of the appellant company and individual has been given in the application to seek waiver of the condition of the pre-deposit on financial ground. The appellant has even failed to produce any document to indicate the financial condition of the company or the individual. Thus, without a substantive pleading with supporting document, the argument raised by the appellant may not be accepted.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submitted that appellant has strong case on merit. The allegation against the appellant is to show bogus export to secure inward remittance of foreign exchange. The allegation aforesaid are erroneous on the face of record and therefore, without any contravention of Section 3 (d) of the Act, the penalty has been imposed on the appellants.

10.